Expats/Brits Abroad and the EU Referendum

[AJS-]

Mrr T said:

I think the leave team are a fairly comical bunch of characters who demand we leave the EU but are light on what leave really means, Do they want to leave the whole EU or are they happy to partially leave but keep say single market access, EU financial services passport, but still have the 4 freedoms, what will they want if that's the only options offered by the rEU. Will they expect complete withdrawal and all the economic costs that would involve.

The remain plan is easy, keep our veto and veto anything we do not like. Mind you the rEU seems further from a new treaty than ever.

When you divide the whole country into 2 groups you won't get a clear and definite vision. Leave includes everyone from people who would like a common market without the political dimension, through to ideologues and isolationists. No one vision unites everyone who believes the EU is the wrong future.

Likewise the Remain vote includes everyone from those who fall for Cameron's reforms through to out and out federalists and world government communists. The only plan that really unites Corbyn, Mandelson, Cameron, Clegg and Salmond is a belief that being in the EU in some form is better than democratic national government.

The difference is that voting to leave is voting to have the debate and let the electorate decide what the future of Britain should be in future elections.

[Kermit power]

menguin said:

Agreed - the country needs to make cuts. Welfare state is unsustainable the way it is now. Totally agree on all points.

However, it still comes back to my question - how long do you consider someone to be allowed to vote in the UK once they leave/stop paying tax? Should someone who is out of work for 2 months be able to vote? What about 6 months? Should someone who has left the UK for a gap year be able to vote if there is an election in that year? What about someone leaving to work overseas on a 2 year contract?

I'd allow the vote for anyone (regardless of nationality) who has paid over a certain level of NI in the previous 5 years, plus have lifetime voting rights once a higher level of NI has been reached, as if people have paid in substantially throughout their working lives, I believe they should have the right to continue voting in retirement.

menguin said:

There has to be a line drawn. Currently that line is rather long - I think 15 years is too much. 5 years would seem reasonable to me. What I do consider unreasonable is saying that anyone who is not currently paying tax should not be able to vote on any issues within the UK. That has the potential to lead to a situation where politicians (who only care about the voters) ignoring those who, for one reason or another, cannot vote. Many might be lazy fkers who don't deserve to vote, many however may be reasonable people who because of this change are suddenly unable to vote.

Look at the flipside. I'd say that at present, politicians ignore the highest contributors in society, as although they contribute the lion's share of the exchequer's funds, they are a very small proportion of the electorate in numbers, and the attitude seems to be identifying the maximum amount to which they can be bent over a barrel and shafted without actually leaving the country.

[Murph7355]

beanbag said:

...

If you don't think this happens, let me explain my personal situation. I am resident in Spain but I work in Gibraltar. An EU country, right? Wrong according to Spain.

They refuse to acknowledge Gibraltar's right to EU membership through the UK so any person resident in Spain but working in Gibraltar is not eligible to S1 healthcare. In fact, I had to prove I had private healthcare cover and I was treated as a non-EU resident by having to prove to the tax office I had €50,000 in cash in a bank account. (All because I wanted to register myself in Spain and pay tax to the country I reside in).

...

And it's not just Spain. Most other EU countries will be the same or similar.

This is interesting...

A few days ago another poster put up a link to a William Hague newspaper article noting how our membership of the EU had really helped the situation with Gibraltar (and the Falklands etc etc). He noted that if Spain kicked up a fuss, he could go chat with the Spanish rep and if needed he could call in other EU grandes fromages to mediate.

However from what you're saying, the EU is allowing Spain to treat people based in Gib as non-EU citizens. (I'm assuming you're a UK citizen).

Either that isn't allowed and hence being in the EU isn't helping Gibraltar. Or it is allowed in which case....being in the EU isn't helping Gibraltar.

Personally I have no issue with people wanting to live abroad needing to prove they can pay their way/cover the costs. It seems like a very sensible economic approach as each nation will have enough of its own citizens to look after (increasing exponentially) without also having its services stretched by others. But then it seems that other European nations are covered in that respect too as they can claim back treatment fees from our government.

Net effect - nothing will change I would think. The Spaniards (to keep using the example) won't want to lose the money the Brits over there spend (their economy's bad enough as it is). They can claim back treatment fees etc. so what's the problem?

Of course if a future UK government decided those living abroad should be covering their own costs, then things might change. But no one's saying that at present and we can vote for a government that won't do it if we so desire. That could all happen just as easily inside or outside the EU though.

[beanbag]

Murph7355 said:

beanbag said:

...

If you don't think this happens, let me explain my personal situation. I am resident in Spain but I work in Gibraltar. An EU country, right? Wrong according to Spain.

They refuse to acknowledge Gibraltar's right to EU membership through the UK so any person resident in Spain but working in Gibraltar is not eligible to S1 healthcare. In fact, I had to prove I had private healthcare cover and I was treated as a non-EU resident by having to prove to the tax office I had €50,000 in cash in a bank account. (All because I wanted to register myself in Spain and pay tax to the country I reside in).

...

And it's not just Spain. Most other EU countries will be the same or similar.

This is interesting...

A few days ago another poster put up a link to a William Hague newspaper article noting how our membership of the EU had really helped the situation with Gibraltar (and the Falklands etc etc). He noted that if Spain kicked up a fuss, he could go chat with the Spanish rep and if needed he could call in other EU grandes fromages to mediate.

However from what you're saying, the EU is allowing Spain to treat people based in Gib as non-EU citizens. (I'm assuming you're a UK citizen).

Either that isn't allowed and hence being in the EU isn't helping Gibraltar. Or it is allowed in which case....being in the EU isn't helping Gibraltar.

Personally I have no issue with people wanting to live abroad needing to prove they can pay their way/cover the costs. It seems like a very sensible economic approach as each nation will have enough of its own citizens to look after (increasing exponentially) without also having its services stretched by others. But then it seems that other European nations are covered in that respect too as they can claim back treatment fees from our government.

Net effect - nothing will change I would think. The Spaniards (to keep using the example) won't want to lose the money the Brits over there spend (their economy's bad enough as it is). They can claim back treatment fees etc. so what's the problem?

Of course if a future UK government decided those living abroad should be covering their own costs, then things might change. But no one's saying that at present and we can vote for a government that won't do it if we so desire. That could all happen just as easily inside or outside the EU though.

Sadly, most Brits living in Spain but working in Gibraltar don't pay tax as they don't declare themselves in Spain. It's an embarrassment since many will openly criticise those who do the same back home.

However, Gibraltar in the EU helps massively. Without EU support, the Spanish would blockade the borders and slow down traffic going in and out causing chaos. They still try this often but it's a lot better these days. On top of that, development of Gibraltar has improve massively through EU funding and grants and it's now quite an online gaming, finance and oil powerhouse. It does very well through the inherited EU membership it enjoys.

My situation however is a little different and there are still many issues which the Spanish government need to deal with.

Regarding treatment fees, I don't think it's as simple as claiming them back as you suggest. With no fee-trade agreement in place, how will this be billed. The paper trail and red-tape would be horrific and I don't see a country like Spain agreeing to this. It would be very much like getting treatment in the US and asking them to bill it back to the NHS. It's just not going to happen.

[Mrr T]

AJS- said:

The difference is that voting to leave is voting to have the debate and let the electorate decide what the future of Britain should be in future elections.

Really?? I thought the referendum was about leaving or remaining in the EU not starting a debate about the leave options. So should we have another referendum when the leave options are agreed?

Edited by Mrr T on Wednesday 8th June 17:06

[s2art]

beanbag said:

Regarding treatment fees, I don't think it's as simple as claiming them back as you suggest. With no fee-trade agreement in place, how will this be billed. The paper trail and red-tape would be horrific and I don't see a country like Spain agreeing to this. It would be very much like getting treatment in the US and asking them to bill it back to the NHS. It's just not going to happen.

Why? We have reciprocal healthcare agreements with dozens of countries, most outside the EU.

[Murph7355]

beanbag said:

Sadly, most Brits living in Spain but working in Gibraltar don't pay tax as they don't declare themselves in Spain. It's an embarrassment since many will openly criticise those who do the same back home.

However, Gibraltar in the EU helps massively. Without EU support, the Spanish would blockade the borders and slow down traffic going in and out causing chaos. They still try this often but it's a lot better these days. On top of that, development of Gibraltar has improve massively through EU funding and grants and it's now quite an online gaming, finance and oil powerhouse. It does very well through the inherited EU membership it enjoys.

My situation however is a little different and there are still many issues which the Spanish government need to deal with.

Regarding treatment fees, I don't think it's as simple as claiming them back as you suggest. With no fee-trade agreement in place, how will this be billed. The paper trail and red-tape would be horrific and I don't see a country like Spain agreeing to this. It would be very much like getting treatment in the US and asking them to bill it back to the NHS. It's just not going to happen.

I've been to Gib three times and the Spanish caused customs hassles on all occasions, including one where weather hassles compounded with Spanish arseiness meant I arrived home 7hrs late. (Can't say I cared for the place at all. It felt like a Northern coastal town in the 70s only not quite as nice).

My understanding is that there are already arrangements in place in the EU for countries to reclaim treatment charges. So the processes already exist.

http://news.sky.com/story/1652305/nhs-scandal-as-u...

This link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/100226...

suggests Spain received NET payments of £244m for healthcare costs in 2013. Call me old fashioned but the likelihood of them not wanting to maintain such an arrangement is about as likely as me going back to Gib

Note I'm not one to get hysterical over the numbers as set out in that article. There could be plenty of reasons for the health trade deficit...including our government being numpties. But whilst it may suit a Remain argument that healthcare whilst living in the EU is a big benefit, it's one we pay for (and I would bet that isn't included in the "costs" of the EU that Remain talk about.

[Tony427]

i was going to reply to the questions raised to my previous posts by the usual suspects but it appears that the points have indeed been answered by others.

They put it far more technically than I but I'm sure you will get my drift if I point out that at the moment with rampant unemployment , social unrest, huge debt and no reserves Spain hasn't got a pot to piss in.

To think that they would hamstring the expat community and give it cause to leave en masse is ludicrous.

Spain needs the cash, and the jobs, the British wrinklies provide. Just how long do you think the hospitals on the coast would survive without the British NHS expat funding.

The retired Brits are a very welcome and much needed cash cow. I think my rellies keep the generic gin and white rum distilleries going single handed.

They have a tree for the lemons.

Cheers,

Tony

[BOR]

And what makes you think that post Brexit, the UK will voluntairily pour cash into spanish hospitals ?

[Murph7355]

BOR said:

And what makes you think that post Brexit, the UK will voluntairily pour cash into spanish hospitals ?

I suspect there'll be higher priority items to deal with. But the "fear" here is that Spain will turf our old folk out...not that the old folks' own country will stop the arrangement. If they're concerned about that, then they should vote differently at the next GE.

(If I were chancellor not only would I cease pouring money into foreign health services, but I'd also stop commuting pensions. If people wish to live abroad/go for extended periods, they can cover the costs themselves...and if they want a state pension, I want them spending as much of it here as possible).

[AJS-]

Mrr T said:

AJS- said:

The difference is that voting to leave is voting to have the debate and let the electorate decide what the future of Britain should be in future elections.

Really?? I thought the referendum was about leaving or remaining in the EU not starting a debate about the leave options. So should we have another referendum when the leave options are agreed?

Not necessarily, but it will certainly kick start a process of redefining our role in Europe and the world, as well as some important questions about Britain itself post EU. I would imagine the next general election would present different options.

[beanbag]

AJS- said:

Mrr T said:

AJS- said:

The difference is that voting to leave is voting to have the debate and let the electorate decide what the future of Britain should be in future elections.

Really?? I thought the referendum was about leaving or remaining in the EU not starting a debate about the leave options. So should we have another referendum when the leave options are agreed?

Not necessarily, but it will certainly kick start a process of redefining our role in Europe and the world, as well as some important questions about Britain itself post EU. I would imagine the next general election would present different options.

And during that time, what?

This just nudges us towards another inevitable recession until agreements are put in place which could take years.

In other words, many people, business and of course the economy will suffer badly in this transition period.

It's all bks.

I agree with the sentiment that leave campaigners should come up with a plan before campaigning to leave.

If I can see a decent economic reason to leave I too would do so, but the leave campaign is nothing more than an ego trip.

John Redwood was a total joke and typical lying politician discussing our £350m "weekly" costs to the EU when in fact it's all bullst. It's typical language from the leave campaigners claiming this money can be siphoned back into the NHS black hole.

Ultimately the figure that we will "save" is about £120m but then we have to pay for trade agreements and other areas the EU funds so the figure will probably be around £50m at best and I hardly think the NHS will benefit from much of that. The problem is the numbers are so astronomic that most people simply cannot comprehend how it should cost to run a country so they think it's all being wasted.

[Murph7355]

beanbag said:

...
If I can see a decent economic reason to leave I too would do so, but the leave campaign is nothing more than an ego trip.
...

There is no economic argument either way. This referendum isn't about the economy, and anyone trying to tell you they know what will happen economically from 24th June is lying. It's all guesswork.

If we stay and the economy tanks at the end of the year, what conclusions will you draw?

[beanbag]

Murph7355 said:

beanbag said:

...
If I can see a decent economic reason to leave I too would do so, but the leave campaign is nothing more than an ego trip.
...

There is no economic argument either way. This referendum isn't about the economy, and anyone trying to tell you they know what will happen economically from 24th June is lying. It's all guesswork.

If we stay and the economy tanks at the end of the year, what conclusions will you draw?

I was wrong. But we are very strong now and our economy has benefited from being part of the EU. Prior to that we struggled badly and as I've already stated before, we literally had to beg to join with our tail between our legs.

I'll put it this way. I personally feel we'll benefit much more together than going alone.

[Murph7355]

beanbag said:

I was wrong. But we are very strong now and our economy has benefited from being part of the EU. Prior to that we struggled badly and as I've already stated before, we literally had to beg to join with our tail between our legs.

I'll put it this way. I personally feel we'll benefit much more together than going alone.

You are confusing causation with correlation.

Again, no one can say definitively that we have benefitted or not from being part of the EU, as no one can definitively say how much better or worse we would have done outside of it.

What you believe is your choice, but please look a little deeper into what you're being told before deciding.

Edited to add that I'm not intending to be "personal" with these remarks. I talked with my other half about the EU referendum last week and some of the info she's taken from the propaganda being issued startled me (she's educated and young - well, at least in the category that is regarded as young for this vote ). "The UK's tiny, what can we do on our own", "why do we want to cut our business ties with Europe", "our kids won't have the same opportunities for work abroad" etc. To be fair she saw through much of the "we're safer" type bs that was mentioned, but the economic FUD was concerning her a lot.

How has this country got itself into a position where as the 5th biggest economy in the world, leaders in many industries and with a reasonable diversity of economic sectors, that young educated people can think we're "tiny" and incapable?

Edited by Murph7355 on Thursday 9th June 11:42

[TEKNOPUG]

beanbag said:

Murph7355 said:

beanbag said:

...
If I can see a decent economic reason to leave I too would do so, but the leave campaign is nothing more than an ego trip.
...

There is no economic argument either way. This referendum isn't about the economy, and anyone trying to tell you they know what will happen economically from 24th June is lying. It's all guesswork.

If we stay and the economy tanks at the end of the year, what conclusions will you draw?

I was wrong. But we are very strong now and our economy has benefited from being part of the EU. Prior to that we struggled badly and as I've already stated before, we literally had to beg to join with our tail between our legs.

I'll put it this way. I personally feel we'll benefit much more together than going alone.

We were the 4th biggest economy before we joined - now we are the 5th (although we've actually dropped 2 placed as the Soviet Union were 2nd before their break up).

The 3 biggest economies are not in the EU.
6 of the top 10 are not in the EU.
13 of the top 20 are not in the EU.

But it's just correlation. You can choose to believe whatever you like.

[AJS-]

Beanbag
According to the treaties there would be a 2 year period to negotiate our exit and I believe it's likely that we would end up retaining access to the single market anyway. It works for both sides.

Worst case we have to readjust to life outside the customs union. Still not the end of the world. A bit of adjusting but plenty of opportunities too.

But as others said, it's political. No amount of immediate economic stability makes democratic control of our government negotiable for me. Even if the absurd scare stories were true.

Moreover in the long run prosperity is always best served by small, limited,democratic government rather than big remote bureaucracies full of learned experts.

[Kermit power]

Murph7355 said:

How has this country got itself into a position where as the 5th biggest economy in the world, leaders in many industries and with a reasonable diversity of economic sectors, that young educated people can think we're "tiny" and incapable?

Ironically, much of it probably comes from the endless whining of the Daily Wail brigade carping on about Britain's demise just because Lancashire is no longer wall to wall cotton mills and Lowry isn't sat on a stool at the bottom of their road sketching them and the neighbours on the way to work.

How can we possibly still be a major manufacturing economy when we barely seem to be sending any six year olds down the pits these days????

These people are perfectly happy to take the benefits of globalisation and ever increased industrialisation, of course, but hey, let's not let that get in the way of blaming those nasty continentals at the EU for the fact that it's no longer 1872!

[NordicCrankShaft]

So, fellow Brits abroad.....how are we feeling?

[jshell]

I just had a largish pay rise. Paid in Euros, converted to NOK and then £.